…unlike some other recently publicized corporate fraud cases, the purpose of this conspiracy was not to defraud Dynegy or to enrich Olis. Nor did the conspiracy cause Dynegy to file for bankruptcy… Although these facts do not detract from the seriousness of the crime for which Olis was convicted, they mitigate against the type of harsh sentence that may be deserved in cases where the defendant’s conduct enriched him at the company’s detriment or brought about the downfall of the company.

The opinion also points out that Olis deserves a lower sentence because the fraud involved was not meant to defraud the company or its shareholders, and not meant to enrich the defendant. Worse still for the former CEO of Enron?... The author of these words himself is scheduled to sentence Skilling on October 23rd.

In a Class Action proceeding initiated in November 2001 - The case after numerous delays by Multiut, is now proceeding.
Gore vs Multiut - IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS Case No. 01 CH 19688
Posted on September 11th, 2007:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CHANCERY DIVISION
FILED
JACK GORE on behalf of himself and all ) NOV 28, 2002
other persons or entitles similarly situated, |
*
vs. No. 01 CH 19688
DOROTHY 8ROWN CLERK OF CIRCUIT COURT
MULTIUT CORP, an Illinois corporation, } Judge Stephen A, Schiller
Defendant ) Courtroom 2402
RESPONSE TO §2-619.1 MOTION TO DISMISS J/
Plaintiff JACK GORE ("Gore"). by his attorneys LARRY D DRURY LTD., hereby responds to the Motion to Dismiss 2nd Amended Complaint, pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615 and 619, brought as a combined 2-619.1 motion by defendant MULTIUT CORP. ("Multiut").
Introduction
Multiut is trying to time-bar this case by transforming express a written agency-service contract drafted by Multiut into a contract for sale of goods, and by disputing Gore's allegations as to concealment and discovery of the wrong - but without submitting any Rule 191 affidavit or documentation. This is a class action arising out
of a written contract drafted by Multiut, attached here and to the 2nd Amended Complaint as Exhibit A and B collectively referred to herein as the "contract" or "agreement " unless otherwise indicated by context): (1)
(A) A service contract to act as Gore's "purchasing representatives" in obtaining natural gas from "off system" suppliers. This contract, entered into on or about December 1990, was titled "Agreement," Exh. A 1, 3-6, 10. And,
{B} A series of supplemental agency contracts to act as Gore's agent, in so doing with respect to various Properties. These were entered into contemporaneously with the service contract and thereafter, and titled "Natural Gas Purchasing and Agency Agreement." Exh.-B. (2)
(1) Similarly Multiut refers to them collectively as "the agreement" in its brief (Mem. p. 2, fn. 1). Although the documents are on separately filed pages, they are mutually inclusive and one could not be entered into without the other; e.g. the service contract refers to and incorporates the agency contracts, wherein Multiut refers to itself as Gore's 'exclusive natural gas purchasing agent'. See Exh. A, third introductory paragraph and 16-17; Exh. B 1,
(2) Exh. 8 one of the series, is dated 1998, Exh. C is Gore's §2-806 affidavit as to the others. Gore has stated he does not have a copy of each, they are inaccessible to him i.e. no longer in his possession, whether missplaced or otherwise, and cannot be located or returned. 2nd Amd.. Compl. {4; Exh, C, in the 1st Amd. Complaint, Count 4 for breach of oral contract was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after Gore's deposition of May 8,- 2002, when the service contract and the 1998 agency contract were produced by Multiut and adequately established, Exhs, A-B are the same Exhs. 1-2 attached to the Gore transcript, excerpts of which are attached herein as Exh. D, Similarly the missing agency agreements are likely in Multiut's possession and will be produced in discovery.
The contract was drafted by Multiut, it unequivocally defines Multiut's role in the transactions, and shows that this case is not governed by the UCC. What is at issue here is not the "good" that Multiut obtained for Gore, but the service Multiut provided as his purchasing agent. Gore is suing upon the service and agency contract - not the natural gas - and has alleged that Multiut breached its duties in two respects;
{1} By falsely and intentionally charging and retaining for its own use funds that were to be applied to a City of Chicago 8% gross receipts tax ("Tax"), which it had promised would be placed in escrow and forwarded to the City. Between December 1990 and January 1995 (after the City of Chicago changed the Tax), Multiut collected approximately $14,000 from Gore and at least $1 million to $1.5 million from the Class, for this Tax that was not actually imposed upon Multiut. 2nd Amd. Compl. 7-9, '3! Multiut not only failed to inform Plaintiff and
the Class that the money collected was not so applied or escrowed, but also failed to escrow, account for, and refund the funds with interest.
(2) By overcharging for the service of providing natural gas. Multiut was to charge for natural gas actually supplied to Gore and the Class on a set per therm cost basis, plus an amount equal to 1/2 of their respective per therm cost savings per month, instead, Multiut overcharged and billed Gore at least $100.000 and the class millions of dollars and refuses to provide an accounting and refund with interest. Id. 10-11.
Gore has further alleged that Multiut prevented him from discovering the wrongs by intentionally concealing them until at least December 2000, when he discovered the truth and could not reasonably have done so earlier. (Gore testified at his deposition on May 8, 2002 that he first discovered the discrepancies in his bills, the overcharges, the taxes, and failure to escrow the taxes, in December 2000. See Exh, D, pp. 25-28,) Thereafter he was unable to obtain any refund and based thereon, terminated Multiut's services on or about June 2001, However, the wrongful acts are continuing to date, in that Multiut continues to 'refuse to provide an accounting and refund with interest to Gore and the Class, all to their detriment and damage. They seek imposition of constructive trust (id. 22), an accounting and damages in not less than the foregoing amounts plus interest (id, 9-13, 23).
Gore filed the original Class Action Complaint on Nov. 20, 2001, and in lieu of responding to a motion to dismiss, filed the 1st Amended Class Action Complaint Feb. 14, 2002, setting forth 4 counts for (1) breach of
3-: The City did not and will not collect the 8% Tax, presumably because of U.S. constitutional restrictions as to the interstate commerce clause and exceptions for interstate pipelines and out-of-state suppliers. As a result in 1994 the City changed the tax from an 8% gross receipts tax to a flat rate tax of 1.4 to 1.5 cents per therm. 2nd Amd. Comp. P 8. in Multiut's response to First Request to Admit {attached hereto as Exh. F), it has admitted the following statements about this Tax; (8) that Multiut collected approximately $14,000 in Tax from Gore between 1991-1994; and (9) that Multiut spent its customers Tax payments on business expenses.. Yehuda Draiman testified to the same effect in his deposition 1-10-02 See transcript excerpts attached hereto as Exh. E, at pp, 36-37,40, 68, and Exh, 6 thereto.
Activity Date: 8/15/2007 Participant: GORE JACK
CASE SET ON STATUS CALL
Court Date: 8/29/2007
Court Time: 0930
Court Room: 2402
Judge: BRONSTEIN, PHILIP L.

August 30th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
RE: MULTIUT CORP. FORMER CUSTOMERS!
Multiut owner is Nachshon Draiman of Cook County, Illinois
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT YOU ARE PROBABLY DUE A REFUND PLUS INTEREST FOR SALES TAX ON NATURAL GAS WHICH WAS COLLECTED FROM YOU AND WITHHELD BY MULTIUT CORP. TEL # 847-982-0030 at 7514 N. Skokie Bl. Skokie, Illinois.
MULTIUT IS HOLDING APPROXIMATELY OVER ONE MILLION DOLLARS THAT MAY BELONG TO CUSTOMERS.
MULTIUT HAS OVERBILLED CUSTOMERS ON SHARED SAVINGS FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS.
THERE IS CURRENTLY A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST MULTIUT.
I STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU HAVE ALL YOUR BILLS THAT WERE ISSUED BY MULTIUT CORP. AUDITED THOROUGHLY THERE MAY BE STORAGE CREDITS DUE YOU AND ERRORS IN BILLING WHICH CREDITS MAY BE DUE YOU.
Multiut has admitted in Court that they are holding the money.
Gore vs Multiut 01 CH 19688 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
A concerned citizen
For honesty in billing

Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323) revoked and fined
Illinois Department of Financial and
Professional Regulation NEWS
IDFPR
Disciplinary Actions for January 2008 SPRINGFIELD
The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR)
announced today that the Directors of the Division of Professional Regulation, Daniel E. Bluthardt, and Insurance, Michael T. McRaith, signed the following disciplinary orders in January. Orders for the Division of Banking were authorized by Director Jorge Solis.

Miriam Draiman was granted her appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court. (Rev.1)
First Division Docket No. 1-06-2323 – In an opinion issued on April 26, 2008, The Appellate Court reversed a lower court ruling (preventing Miriam from suing her attorney) that Miriam Draiman may now proceed with a law suit for ineffective assistance of counsel, negligence and damages of millions of dollars against her former Chicago attorney Glen Seiden and his Associates**.
Now that the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation on January 2008 revoked Nachshon Draiman Nursing Home License 044001323 for lying under oath and presenting a false College Diploma – some semblance of justice may come out of this protracted litigation and Miriam Draiman and Yehuda Draiman will be exonerated from all the litigations initiated by Nachshon Draiman – Multiut – Future Associates – where as usual Nachshon Draiman forged and presented modified documents to the courts as proven by the forensic expert and attested to by former Chicago Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Ellis. Court records show that Nachshon Draiman defrauded Yehuda Draiman of Millions of dollars.
Court records of both State and Federal are replete with Nachshon Draiman’s Frauds, numerous contempt of Court orders – numerous false and modified documents – See; Dynegy vs. Nachshon Draiman, Multiut, Future Associates - 02 C 7446 (A $22 million dollar lawsuit for fraud and insolvency), Class action lawsuit - Gore vs. Multiut 01 CH 19688 Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (Energy Billing Fraud Charges vs. Multiut owned by Nachshon Draiman). Nachshon Draiman’s conviction for the death of a patient at his Nursing Home. A $45 million lawsuit against Nachshon Draiman by Israel Discount Bank for fraud and deception.
A side note 2 Chicago Judges in this case – Judge Stephen Schiller and Judge Philip Bronstein (formerly investigated by the Illinois Greylord Corruption cases) left the bench under mysterious circumstances.
Glen Seiden (Miriam Draiman’s former attorney) was a personal friend of Allan J. Mandel (Nachshon Draiman’s attorney)
A former Chicago Federal Judge Irwin Katz is a partner of Nachshon Draiman
The frauds committed by Nachshon Draiman are too numerous to mention.
For additional information see; www.antidefamationusa.com
** But for [the law firm's] negligence and malfeasance, [Miriam] would not have had judgment entered against her for attorneys fees under the [Act]. Even if judgment had been erroneously entered against her in the trial court, the issue would have been preserved for appeal and reversed by the Appellate Court but for the negligent and reckless conduct of [the law firm.] 39. As a direct, actual and proximate cause of the breaches of the duty of reasonable care by [the law firm], [Miriam] has suffered and continues to suffer damages

Jay Draiman -
June 6, 2008 8:40 AM

Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – a disgruntled owner and operator of a Natural Gas Supply company – who was caught by his brother Yehuda Jay Draiman and others was stealing from employees, customers, suppliers, banks and his partners including his own blind elderly mother. Initiated a campaign of smear and fraud with the presentation of fraudulent documents (a common practice) to the courts. State and Federal court records are replete with lawsuit and litigations against Nachshon Draiman and his businesses, Multiut, Future Associates and various Nursing Homes operated by Nachshon Draiman.
The revocation of the Nursing Home license which was issued in 1975 initiated Nachshon Draiman’s involvement in syndicating the purchase of numerous Nursing Homes in the Chicago metro area – the whole pyramid was based on fraud and deception by obtaining his license through fraud. (Some of the nursing homes were closed down and or forced by State officials to be sold. Lawsuits for patient’s abuse and causing the death of a patient are common, including bank fraud. A major lawsuit by Dynegy vs Nachshon Draiman, Multiut Case No. 02 C 7446 for $22 million and a $45 million by Israel Discount Bank for fraud, just to name a few.
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323) revoked and fined
Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
NEWS
IDFPR
Disciplinary Actions for January 2008 SPRINGFIELD
The Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (IDFPR)
announced today that the Directors of the Division of Professional Regulation, Daniel E. Bluthardt, and Insurance, Michael T. McRaith, signed the following disciplinary orders in January. Orders for the Division of Banking were authorized by Director Jorge Solis.
NURSING HOME ADMINISTRATOR
Nachshon Draiman, Chicago – nursing home administrator license (044001323)
revoked and fined $2,000 for misrepresenting information in his application concerning postgraduate education degree, to obtain nursing home administrator licensure from the Department.
For additional information see: www.nachshondraiman.net

Jay Draiman, Utility Auditor -
September 8, 2008 10:38 PM

Unauthorized Charges on Your Local Phone - Utility Bill?
How to Find Them, Eliminate Them & Get Your Money Back!
If your business still gets its phone service through the old "AT&T and Verizon, etc" local phone company (as opposed to one of the newer competitive phone providers) then you need to double check your phone bill each and every month for charges you did not authorize. You may not know it but the local phone company allows other companies to bill you through your local phone bill. And while the local phone company allows other businesses to bill you through your local phone bill, the local phone company does not verify that the charges being billed to you by the other company are valid. When these unauthorized charges fraudulently appear on your phone bill it's called "cramming". Unfortunately you as the business owner or manager are the only one that can spot the unauthorized charges and if you don't comb over your bill every month to spot these unauthorized charges - you'll pay for them.
Why does the local phone company allow other companies to pass charges onto your phone bill? "Third-party billing" is supposedly a great convenience in that you only have to pay one bill instead of separate bills for obvious authorized phone related charges like yellow-page advertising in the "real yellow pages", 411 information calls and long-distance calls from your chosen long distance carrier. Over the years though, some less-than-scrupulous companies have realized that most businesses rarely scrutinize their local-phone bills. To take advantage of this, these companies have come up with elaborate schemes to place
unauthorized charges on your phone bill that you'll end up paying for without even thinking. Unauthorized
charges you can end up paying for include charges for unwanted (and unused) email accounts, web sites,
directory information calls, directory advertising in obscure publications, voice mail accounts and other
services.
In theory, before these charges can be placed on your phone bill, the company that is originating the third-party billed charges is supposed to have a verification of the order like a voice recording. In reality though,
all the company needs to do to initiate the charge is submit your name and phone number to the billing
entity. The verifications are only required to be produced if a complaint is filed.
To prevent these charges from appearing on you business phone bill it's helpful to understand the four
parties that make unauthorized third party phone charges a costly reality. Party number one is any
employee who can answer your business phones. The unauthorized charge is rarely random and it usually
happens after one of your company employees gets a telemarketing call. Employees should be instructed to
document and report any overly aggressive telemarketing calls they receive. Party number two is the
telemarketing company that originates the unauthorized charges by trying to get your employee to accept
some service for which you'll be billed through your local phone bill. Party number three is the third-party
billing company that has billing agreements with your local phone company. The name of the third-party
billing is the one that is prominently displayed on your phone bill. After the third-party billing company's
name is the name of the company that is originating the unwanted charges. Party number four is your "former Ma Bell" local phone company that collects the unwanted charges (keeps a share for "Ma") and then passes the rest to the third-party billing company (who keeps a big share) and then passes the balance on to the company that initiated the unwanted charge.
Following are some of the top third-party billing names and unauthorized charge originators you'll find on
your phone bill. If you see these names on your phone bill you'll want to call the toll free number listed next to the charge to confirm it's a charge that's been properly authorized to be placed on your bill. Following are actual examples that we've recently found while auditing business phone bills.
We recommend customers should review any utility bills issued by deregulated utility companies. (In most instances today, consumers are paying higher charges to the deregulated gas and electric supply companies).
All Utility - Energy, gas, electric and water bills should be reviewed for proper reading and tariff.
If you suspect that you have been overcharged ask for detailed explanation and or file a complaint with your State Utility Commission.
Compiled by: Jay Draiman, Utility Auditor

Jay Draiman -
September 28, 2008 5:25 PM

Nachshon Draiman and Multiut charged $15 million judgment
Honorable John A. Nordberg: Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order.
For the reasons set forth above, defendants motion for summary judgment is granted, and judgment is granted to plaintiff, and against defendants Multiut and Nachshon Draiman
Case 1:02-cv-07446 Document 228 Filed 06/11/2008 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.2.1
Eastern Division
Dynegy Marketing and Trade
Plaintiff,
v. Case No.: 1:02−cv−07446
Hon. John A. Nordberg
Multiut Corporation, Nachshon Draiman, et al.
Defendant.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Wednesday, June 11, 2008:
MINUTE entry before the Honorable John A. Nordberg:Enter Memorandum
Opinion and Order. For the reasons set forth above, defendants motion for summary judgment is granted, and judgment is granted to plaintiff, and against defendants Multiut and Nachshon Draiman, on Counts I and II of plaintiffs amended complaint, in the amount of
$15,348,244.72 plus interest accruing from October 1, 2004. Judgment is granted for plaintiff and against defendants on Counts I through VI of defendants
counterclaims.Status hearing set for 10/2/2008 at 2:30 PM. [183],[196]Mailed notice(tlp, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
www.nachshondraiman.net